Uncle Mike
Member
Politics~
SCAR
- Thread starter Maj Dad
- Start date
- Status
Politics~
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
The FAL is a better bargain for the same firepower and more proven track record. Also, believe it or not, the receiver, both upper and lower are made from genuine steel!
chieftain
Member
BINGO!
In fact as troops where dying and being wounded because of the M16, we were ORDERED by the Commandant to not complain about the M16.
Yes, it was that bad.
Go figure.
Fred
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
'Cept I could get two FAL's and a Springfield for the same money as the SCAR.
Also, the SCAR offers little in the way of advantages over the FAL, as far as 7.62 is concerned, especially considering the price tag.
maybe, unless you count
less weight
better ergonomics
integral rails
apparently a near MOA guarantee
better after-market parts, due to accepting some AR parts like grips
i'd pay the price difference between the FAL and SCAR to get any of the top three (less weight, better ergonomics, rails that don't suck). getting all 3 seems like a bargain
less weight
better ergonomics
integral rails
apparently a near MOA guarantee
better after-market parts, due to accepting some AR parts like grips
i'd pay the price difference between the FAL and SCAR to get any of the top three (less weight, better ergonomics, rails that don't suck). getting all 3 seems like a bargain
OP
OP
Maj Dad
Member
12131,
I respectfully disagree. Totally. I've handled GI weapons since 1967, commerical 10 years before, and objectively this is the most user friendly and bullet-proof rifle I have encountered. Just my 2 cents.
I respectfully disagree. Totally. I've handled GI weapons since 1967, commerical 10 years before, and objectively this is the most user friendly and bullet-proof rifle I have encountered. Just my 2 cents.
HorseSoldier
Member
We had guys in my last unit who were still running around in BDUs in 07 and 08 in Afghanistan, because they were working with ANA units who were wearing woodland BDUs at the time. Reducing the sniper bait factor was the justification and didn't raise any eyebrows with our own chain of command.
Which does not mean that a$$hat Big Army sergeants major didn't come running in from the surrounding four timezones as soon as any of those guys dared to show their face (and BDUs) at Bagram, since god forbid anybody dress in a functional uniform in the brave new era of the ACUs . . .
They are most likely paying a lot more than an M16 or M4.
And I do not see the point in barrel changing.
As for Spec Forces using the SCAR, still not impressed. They have also run around with XM8s and HK416s, among other things "destined" to replace our Stoner designs.
Bottom line: given logistics at this point and time, and budget cuts, I see the SCAR as a supplement or maybe as a prime alternative for those with more freedom i.e. Special forces. But, as a replacement for our current design, I doubt it.
But we'll see. I'd buy one if it could be had at a reasonable price and if the civvie model I could have would still have the caliber swapping features. However, like the ACR, I feel a shaft coming.
I dunno. We *DID* use an entire war to test the M16, and we did so in much larger numbers.
Anyways, I've heard two different things about the SCAR: 1) 80,000ish have been contracted for SOCOM, and 2) the contract never went through and most likely won't due to a few logistics and field drawbacks.
Does anyone know what the real deal is?
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
It's a handy feature for SOF guys, where being able to tailor your weapon system for this mission or that is real nice (and some of the cool kids do it already by deploying with multiple AR uppers in theater).
It could also be a handy feature for guys in the Big Army, but I don't ever see senior leadership signing off on ponying up the money to buy 3 barrels for every guy in infantry units and other guys in the shooter category.
The contract has been delayed and protracted -- I got out in '08 by which time my unit had been standing by to do NETT training for the SCARs three times, if I remember right (as the Group in house training establishment we were supposed to get a set of SCARs to allow guys to do familiarization fire on them and such). Last I heard from buddies who are still in the unit, SCARs still haven't turned up.
fireside44
member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,145
Doubt it's much vs. the alloy lower PARA models. Especially the short gas system models.
Not really.
Unnecessary for most.
A good STG will shoot 1.5-1.75 moa.
SAW grip is available for FAL.
Yeah, only fifteen hundred dollars more for a strip of rail.
As I stated, overpriced. Has "FN" written on it. Explains about $1,250 extra bucks for it.
Full Metal Jacket
member
there's better rifles for far less money than the SCAR.
the springfield armory SOCCOM II would be one of them.
i looked at a SCAR the other day to see what all the hubub was about. i was completely underwhelmed. it seems to be made with cheap plastic parts.
the springfield armory SOCCOM II would be one of them.
i looked at a SCAR the other day to see what all the hubub was about. i was completely underwhelmed. it seems to be made with cheap plastic parts.
12131
Member
Thanks for your service, and I'm quite sure you have vast more experience than I. I'm just a civilian gun enthusiast, but for me, the SCAR turns me off the moment I see it, and handling it didn't do anything for me. And the price tag sure didn't help it, either. Yeah, I know, I didn't shoot it, but I don't have to shoot a gun to not like it.
- Status
